[ SECRET POST #6834 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6834 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
[Rayman]



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #976.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

DA
I think there's two different arguments going on here, starting from the same premise.

Stance 1: Kink in public involving unwilling people is violation. Furry = always kink/sex, therefore anything furry in public is violation

Stance 2: Kink in public involving unwilling people is violation. However, furry = not always kink/sex, just like being lgbt = not always kink/sex, therefore saying "anything furry in public is violation" is the same logic as "anything lgbt in public is violation"

[paperghost]

I agree with stance 2, but you can just say that without pulling that argument out of nowhere.

[(Anonymous)]

Sort of, anon that anon is replying to is starting with Stance 1 though: https://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/3279127.html?thread=1146168855#cmt1146168855

"My problem is the same with any kink that incorporates the general public. It’s a violation..." implies that furry is always kink, which the other anon is replying to with the anti-trans rhetoric comment.

But anyway, that's why it's a mess, this thread is half people who insist furry = kink and others that don't agree.

[paperghost]

I read the thread, the whole thing is a mess overall. I even commented that most of the replies missed the point of the OP's secret. I know most commenters on here are anon so I take this bullshit with a grain of salt, but it always drives me crazy when I see people parrot Republican talking points, but it's different if they frame it positively. ~I Guess~

[(Anonymous)]

No it doesn't actually imply this, the TERF whining anon WANTS it to imply this so they can get huffy about it. What is said is that people who do involve others in their kink against their will suck, and the thing this implies is that they include people in their kink at that point, not that eveyrthing they do is part of their kink.